GOP Voters Surge and Democratic Voters Plummet in New Hampshire Primary.

[onehandle]

[img][/img]

[img][/img]

Uh-oh...

[virtualobserver]

1. Bernie got 36,000 more than anyone ever has...Hillary got 24,000 less than in 2008

[LonePirate]

7. How is Bernie (or Hillary) going to overcome that 34,000 voter gap in the GE?

Repubs have far more party loyalty than Dems so it's an uphill battle, especially if Trump is the nominee. His voters might sit out if he is not the nominee but it's to imagine they won't vote for him again and be joined by almost all the other Repub primary voters.

[virtualobserver]

13. primary numbers are much lower than GE numbers

most independents and some Democrats do not vote in the primaries.

Bernie will make the necessary case to win.

[LonePirate]

15. The votes are not there if 2008 is any guide.

In the 2008 NH primary, there were 288K Dem voters compared to 235K Repub voters for a net difference of +53K for the Dems.

In the 2008 GE in NH, there were 385K Dem votes vs. 317K Repub votes, for a net of +68K for the Dems. We gained 15K more votes than the Repubs between the primary and the GE. If that margin holds in 2016, or even if it increases to 25K, we still lose.

[virtualobserver]

16. Republicans and Democrats running head to head is a completely different animal

If it were Hillary vs Jeb, I think that you could make an argument based on scaling up the numbers.

This time though, too many of the candidates are unusual.

[LonePirate]

2. I pointed this out earlier today and apart from a couple of people, DU largely did not care.

IA was the same as NH - Repub turnout increased and was higher than the Dem turnout which dropped sharply from 2008. These numbers are a huge warning sign of imminent danger which we need to address immediately but DU shrugs because people are more concerned about Hillary vs. Bernie than they are about the larger, more important Dem vs. Repub for our future.

[frylock]

3. Now imagine that trend nationwide..

that's what you get with Hillary in the GE.

[kcjohn1]

4. Surprised to see that Maddow didn't put this in context

1) 2008 was RECORD year. It was the best ever. Obama was most exciting candidate in this generation.
2) 2008 Democrats were most motivated as it was change year. 8 Years of Bush rule had the base energized. Difficult to come out when you have being in charge for 8 years.
3) Opposite to that, Republicans feel the same way Dems did in 08. They are much more motivated base
4) 2008 had 3 credible candidates for Dems. Republicans have 10+ candidates. Much more choice usually means more campaigns trying to drive out vote.

Given those circumstances, it is amazing 2016 was close to 2008 numbers.

[Awknid]

6. Thanks for clarifying

I was very upset after hearing Rachel's comments. Now I understand.

[Wilms]

10. I could add that 2008 was competitive.

2016 wasn't.

[uponit7771]

14. Then why is Sanders doing the same thing Alison Grimes did when it comes to Obama?! If Obama

... was that damn electrifying why kick him to the curb?

[notadmblnd]

5. Why was 2008 used and not 2012 as it was in the first graph?

[LonePirate]

8. There was only 1 Dem candidate in 2012 so comparisons between the parties is ineffective.

[notadmblnd]

9. I see, thank you.

[kimbutgar]

11. All the smart youth are leaving the backwards states

A total brain drain on these fox brainwashed states.

[Lans]

12. Compare voting after 8 years of Obama

to voting after 8 years of Bush

2016 Sanders - 151k
2000 McCain - 115k
2008 Clinton - 112k
2016 Trump - 100k
2012 Romney - 97k

Pretty impressive if you ask me.